ILNews

Successful Durham appeal unlikely, outside lawyers say

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The co-owners of Fair Finance Co. who were sentenced Friday on federal fraud charges plan to appeal their convictions, lawyers for the two men say.

But a couple of veteran criminal defense attorneys who tracked the trial of Tim Durham and James Cochran, along with company chief financial officer Rick Snow, say a successful appeal is an extreme long shot.

“If I was involved in that appeal, the last thing that I would do is overstate any hope to the family,” Indianapolis lawyer Robert Hammerle said.
 
Durham received a 50-year sentence and Cochran a 25-year sentence from Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson for defrauding Ohio investors of $250 million. Snow was sentenced to 10 years. Snow’s lawyer, Jeffrey Baldwin, couldn't be reached Monday morning to see if he plans an appeal.

A federal jury in June found Durham guilty on all 12 felony fraud charges stemming from the collapse of Akron, Ohio-based Fair. Durham co-owned the firm with Cochran, who was convicted of eight of 12 felony charges. Snow was convicted on five of 12 counts.

The lengths of their sentences are much shorter than what the government had recommended — 225 years for Durham, 145 years for Cochran and 85 years for Snow.

Following Durham’s sentencing Friday, his lawyer, John Tompkins, said he planned to appeal the conviction to the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. A notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days of sentencing.

Tompkins didn’t return a phone call Monday morning seeking further comment on what legal argument he might use to get Durham’s conviction reversed.

But Friday, he said, “anything that is likely to result in dying in prison can’t be described as a good result.”

Reached by phone Monday morning, Cochran’s lawyer, Joseph Cleary, said he, too, planned to appeal his client’s conviction, though he declined to specify on what grounds.

Cleary did not represent Cochran during his conviction and was appointed as a public defender in late September.

“What the issues in the appeal will be, at this point, I can’t tell you,” Cleary said.

Marty Solomon, a veteran criminal defense lawyer in Indianapolis who has argued several cases in front of 7th Circuit judges, said lawyers mostly cite lack of evidence or judicial error when appealing.

But in the case of Durham and Cochran, the chances of success are slim, said Solomon, who described the evidence as “powerful” and “overwhelming.”

“I would say that Durham and his co-defendants probably have a better chance of hitting a $500 million lottery than succeeding on appeal,” he said.   

Barring successful appeals, Durham, 50, likely will spend the rest of his life in prison and Cochran, 57, most of his remaining years.

Unlike state prisoners, federal inmates must serve 85 percent of their sentences. Durham would need to live to 93 to survive his sentence, and Cochran, to 78. Snow is 49 years old and could be out in 8-1/2 years.

Solomon said Magnus-Stinson likely gave Durham 50 years — basically a life sentence — instead of the recommended 225 years to avoid an appeal on the sentence. Most all federal appeals argue the conviction and not the sentence, he said.

“I never thought of her as a lenient judge,” said Solomon, who appeared before her during her time as a criminal court judge in Marion Superior Court. “So I knew right away that she would be strict with Durham.”

Federal prosecutors sought the stiffer sentences, taking into account 5,122 victims and a loss of $250 million, to punish Durham and Cochran for operating Fair as a Ponzi scheme.

Before his sentencing, Durham said he read many of the letters from victims and regretted that the company failed. He also defended Cochran and Snow but failed to offer an apology.

Cochran, though, sobbed while telling investors how remorseful he was over their losses.

“One thing I know for sure is that I regret what happened to all the investors,” he said. “I’m heartbroken. I never intended for this to happen.”

U.S. Attorney Joseph Hogsett called Durham’s 50-year sentence “a significant price that he deserves.”

The victims "lost their peace of mind, their trust in others, and their faith in goodness and mercy," Hogsett said in a prepared statement. "These are things they will never get back. What Tim Durham and his associates destroyed through self-indulgence was irreplaceable, and those people may never be made whole."

All of IBJ's coverage of Tim Durham and Fair Finance can be found here. The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT